Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

Packers struggle to close out close victories
 
Associated Press
Published: Dec. 2, 2010 at 12:48 a.m. Updated: Dec. 3, 2010 at 07:55 a.m.

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- At first glance, it seems like a harsh indictment of Aaron Rodgers' ability to win close games: Since he took over as the starting quarterback in 2008, the Green Bay Packers are 2-12 in games decided by four or fewer points.

A closer look shows that Sunday's loss at Atlanta wasn't the first time Rodgers successfully led a late-game Packers comeback, only to watch it turn into a loss. Each of the Packers' four losses this season was by three points, despite some strong fourth-quarter drives by Rodgers and the offense.

Rodgers has heard the criticism that he hasn't yet found his fourth-quarter quarterbacking mojo, but he says it doesn't bother him.

"It really doesn't," Rodgers said. "That's a stat that gets thrown out there. I'm trying to win games. (Twelve) of my 19 losses are by four points or less. Some people look at that as a negative. Well, we've been competitive in every game. How many times have we been blown out?"

Not many, but Rodgers probably has to pull off a few more memorable fourth-quarter wins to make that stat go away.

And more important, the Packers' special teams and defense have to perform better.

In nine of the Packers' 12 close losses since 2008, Rodgers and the offense drove for a touchdown or field goal to either tie the score or take the lead at some point in the fourth quarter -- but the Packers still lost. In the other three, the Packers were in position to kick a decisive field goal, but they missed or it was blocked.

Most of those games came in 2008, leading to the dismissal of most of the Packers' defensive coaching staff. But it has become an issue again this season.

With the Packers trailing by seven Sunday at Atlanta, Rodgers executed a masterful 16-play, 90-yard drive that included a pair of fourth-down conversions -- including a 10-yard touchdown pass to Jordy Nelson on fourth-and-goal to tie the score with 56 seconds remaining.

"I have never seen a quarterback, in my time here, play to that level in the passing game," Packers coach Mike McCarthy said this week. "I'll make that statement clearly here."

But the Packers' special teams promptly gave up a big kick return and committed a personal foul, giving the ball back to the Falcons near midfield. The defense couldn't hold, and Atlanta kicked the game-winning field goal with nine seconds left.

"We've done that a few times this season," Rodgers said. "When we've had to have a drive, we've been able to come up with a big drive, and, unfortunately, we've come up on the short end of a couple of those games. There's an urgency level that is there.

"I think when adversity hits this team, it's the thing I'm most proud of: We meet it head-on, and we've been able to make some plays in those situations. I think the urgency needs to be there a little bit more. Obviously, every play in the game."

Rodgers took the blame for his fumble on an attempted quarterback sneak near the goal line in the second quarter.

"I told the guys before the game last week: I said, 'It's going to be a 60-minute game, and it could be a play that happens in the first, second, third or fourth quarter that wins the game or loses the game,'" Rodgers said. "And, unfortunately, I was foreshadowing a play in the second quarter that possibly could have cost us the game. But, unfortunately, you never know when that play is going to be."

When it comes to winning close games, McCarthy said there isn't one specific thing holding the Packers back.

"You don't line up on Sunday afternoon and you're given one opportunity to win the game," McCarthy said. "There's hundreds of different types of opportunities that go on inside that game, and you can break it down by play. Did you win the play or did you lose the play? And when you're winning 60 percent-plus of your plays, you should be winning those games. There was a lot of offensive production this past week, but the bottom line is we didn't get in the end zone enough."


UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago
This is a good article, and it did not even mention the ironic fact that if Rodgers had not led that late TD drive in Atlanta, the Packers would've lost by seven points and therefore the game would not have made the list of "close" games that the Packers have lost with Rodgers at the helm.
blank
Stevetarded
14 years ago
I want to know who the fuck decided 4 points or less is the standard for a close game. That is such a remarkably stupid stat. Lets consider a QB who is losing by 1 point throwing a game winning TD NOT winning a close game but a QB throwing a pick 6 when they are up by 10 points winning a close game. Not to mention it's a complete team stat and doesn't even measure the quarterbacks actual performance in the game.

Here is an interesting comparison that rates QBs actual performances in comeback situations compared to how other QBs perform.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency 
Rodgers rates 5th.
blank
14 years ago

"It really doesn't," Rodgers said. "That's a stat that gets thrown out there. I'm trying to win games. (Twelve) of my 19 losses are by four points or less. Some people look at that as a negative. Well, we've been competitive in every game. How many times have we been blown out?"

This exact thought came to mind when i watched Brees get spanked by the browns, Peyton Manning get destroyed by the Chargers, when i watched Rivers get beat down by the Raiders.

All i kept thinking was thank you Packers for keeping games close, competitive, and exciting.

Sure I want to the Packers to win those close games but i would take getting beat in a nail biter 100 times over seeing my team get killed.

I think many of us fans look way passed this. We are criticizing Rodgers for not being able to win the close games. But on the other side we can also be thanking him for keeping the games close and exciting.
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago

I want to know who the fuck decided 4 points or less is the standard for a close game. That is such a remarkably stupid stat. Lets consider a QB who is losing by 1 point throwing a game winning TD NOT winning a close game but a QB throwing a pick 6 when they are up by 10 points winning a close game. Not to mention it's a complete team stat and doesn't even measure the quarterbacks actual performance in the game.

Here is an interesting comparison that rates QBs actual performances in comeback situations compared to how other QBs perform.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency 
Rodgers rates 5th.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



That is a fascinating article. It looks like we finally have a way to measure clutch performance. I gave up on the traditional "fourth quarter comeback" number back around 2001 when Allen Rossum returned a punt for a game-winning TD and Favre got credit for a fourth quarter comeback. One of the big reasons I soured on Favre was his shaky performance in the clutch. His rating in this article was even lower than I would have expected. And Rodgers' rating is much higher than expected. I thought he would be about average.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Permit me to thumb my nose once again at all the idiots who mindlessly parrot the mantra: "If I had to have one quarterback in the league with two minutes to go, I'd take Brett Favre." I've known for so many years it wasn't true, but it's nice to finally the numbers to back it up.

After [Jason] Campbell, the players with the largest negative differentials are two superstars with reputations for big mistakes in big moments: Donovan McNabb and Brett Favre. McNabb (0.94, 39th) and Favre (0.93, 40th) both have ACE ratings that confirm their below-average performance in clutch situations. The peak of Favre's career (1995-97) is cut off by the 1998 start date for the our data, but with by far the most comeback opportunities (187) of anyone on the list, there are no issues with data credibility for Favre (his personal credibility is a separate debate).



This was written in February 2010, long before his meltdown of this season. Imagine how bad his numbers must look now.
UserPostedImage
peteralan71
14 years ago
I think a lot of it has to do with the D, the ST, and the playcalling and clock management. There are many times that we get the tie or the go-ahead with 1-3 minutes left. For a lot of teams, that is too much time. Teams these days have become too efficient and talented with the 2-minute drills. They bring in different offensive sets that are not seen throughout the game, they go no-huddle, etc. etc. etc. Teams more often than not are good at the 2-minute drill. That's the case against the Packers anyway. And I wouldn't put that 100% on the defense, as our D has shown to be more than sufficient this season.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
This exchange from the comments section made me laugh, so I thought I'd share it here:

I never take the time to comment on anything, but this was one of the most enlightening and interesting articles I've ever read on this site. I thoroughly enjoyed it, excellent work.

Perhaps though, for the sake of catching on with a network you should look into incorporating how much fun a quarterback is having during those comeback drives into your formula. Announcers will continue to spout off about how clutch Favre is no matter what, you might as well give them what they're looking for.

"Random (not verified)" wrote:



Coming soon to stat lines near you, Defense-Adjusted F-HOT - Fun Had Out There.

"Mystyc" wrote:



And I don't think that drives that fail because of "gunslinging" should count as failed drives.

"ChrisZ" wrote:


UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (29m) : Kanata, seek help! lol
beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
beast (3h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
beast (3h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
beast (3h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
Zero2Cool (4h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
beast (5h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
wpr (7h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (23h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
29m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

48m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

49m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.